Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st Jun 2007 14:59 UTC, submitted by Dan Warne
OSNews, Generic OSes Parallels is just weeks away from releasing version 3.0 of its Mac virtualisation suite, beating VMWare to an offering with 3D GPU emulation built-in. Parallels says high-end Windows games will now be playable within a virtual machine There are some other features included too, like the ability to associate any file type in Mac OS X to open in a Windows app, and vice versa.
Order by: Score:
update charge
by Macintosh Sauce on Fri 1st Jun 2007 15:35 UTC
Macintosh Sauce
Member since:
2007-05-03

I just bought Parallels 2 when I bought my Mac Pro early this year. Unbelievable! I am not happy having to pay an upgrade fee after only having the program barely for five months.

Edited 2007-06-01 15:35

Reply Score: 2

RE: update charge
by Kroc on Fri 1st Jun 2007 15:40 UTC in reply to "update charge"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

With all respect, what we have now works well enough. You're not forced to upgrade. The new features are significant enough to warrant a new version, and the upgrade price is very reasonable, especially in the UK

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: update charge
by vimh on Fri 1st Jun 2007 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE: update charge"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

I was with you there for a second but then I thought about our own experience so far with Parallels. The company I work for recently started in earnest to develop for the Mac. We have a number of clients who use Macs requests for a native Mac version have increased lately.

In the mean time, we have serval people who are using Parallels and we have been using it as well. To be perfectly honest, 2.0 has not quite met our expectations. Our primary complaint is it's ability to handle data over serial connections but aside from that, the software has been a bit troublesome (buggy, crashing to the point where I have to kill the process).

If 3.0 solves our problems, then great, we'll bite the bullet. But then again, paying money for bug fixes makes it feel a bit too much for paying for a beta, not a finished product. At least I can just demo 3.0 to see if it is worth the upgrade.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: update charge
by Kroc on Fri 1st Jun 2007 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: update charge"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Parallels is not really a business solution. If you're looking for a rock solid dependable engine, VMWare's Fusion Beta is probably the better long term bet.

Parallels moves quickly, is bleeding edge and comes with the problems such a development style has.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: update charge
by vimh on Fri 1st Jun 2007 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: update charge"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

Agreed, but it's Parallels that our customers have been using so that is what we have been testing with. I'll take a look at the VMWare Fusion Beta and see if that is a better solution.

Reply Score: 2

RE: update charge
by BluenoseJake on Fri 1st Jun 2007 16:01 UTC in reply to "update charge"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

So it's Parallels fault that you bought your copy when you did? That's a bit harsh. Maybe you should have did some research and then waited for this release?

Edited 2007-06-01 16:01

Reply Score: 3

RE: update charge
by binarycrusader on Fri 1st Jun 2007 16:03 UTC in reply to "update charge"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Unbelievable! I am not happy having to pay an upgrade fee after only having the program barely for five months.


Considering the significant feature addition, I think its reasonable.

Its no more "unbelievable" than Apple's sudden hardware upgrades or any other company's.

I imagine there was a significant investment of labour to implement this functionality.

Reply Score: 2

RE: update charge
by digitaldisaster on Fri 1st Jun 2007 16:13 UTC in reply to "update charge"
digitaldisaster Member since:
2006-01-02

How do you expect them to pay developers to develop the new version? You either you pay for each version or you pay a Red Hat et al. style service fee that entitles you to updates as long as you are subscribed.
Those of us that bought Parallels before Christmas get free updates for a year...

Reply Score: 2

v RE: update charge
by shapeshifter on Sat 2nd Jun 2007 07:42 UTC in reply to "update charge"
RE: update charge
by bsharitt on Sat 2nd Jun 2007 11:04 UTC in reply to "update charge"
bsharitt Member since:
2005-07-07

I know what you mean, I recently bought the Brood Wars expansion pack for Starcraft, then a week later they announce Starcraft 2?!?!?!? I was disgusted.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: update charge
by broken_symlink on Sat 2nd Jun 2007 15:42 UTC in reply to "update charge"
broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

"Parallels Inc is offering $10 off the normal upgrade price to existing registered users of Parallels for a week only, bringing the cost down to $US39.99 ($A48.28). After this time, upgrades will cost $49.99 and full licences will cost $79.99. It will give the upgrade away free to customers who purchased Parallels after May 1, 2007."

Reply Score: 2

Wooo!
by adricnet on Fri 1st Jun 2007 16:27 UTC
adricnet
Member since:
2005-07-01

This sounds fab and I've already pre-ordered my upgrade.

If this get Winders GL games running in Parallels it will be worth a lot more than 40 USD.

The Parallels devs deserve the money even if they didn't get this (3d) into three, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see 3D and snapshots both make it in.

Any beta testers have the scoop for us, discretely?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wooo!
by whartung on Fri 1st Jun 2007 16:38 UTC in reply to "Wooo!"
whartung Member since:
2005-07-06

Yea, I'll readily fork over the upgrade charge if this lets modern games run on my Mac. I mean, seriously, this is the "last mile" for folks who may not want to run on a mac.

The Mac already runs World of Warcraft, so I've been content, but it will be nice to open up other options.

On the other side of the coin, this could also be the final nail in the arguments for game companies to make Mac ports of anything.

I'm not worried about office or personal apps, Macs have lots of those. But now game companies can legitimately punt on the whole problem.

So, it's a double edged sword.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wooo!
by vimh on Fri 1st Jun 2007 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Wooo!"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

I don't know about that. I'm inclined to think that companies would want to have native ports due to speed issues. Sure Paraells is quick on its feet, but it's not going to quite meet native speed because it can't quite take advantage of what native code can offer. Maybe that's just wishful thinking.

I think WOW would be a great test. On the same machine do some performance tests to see how it runs natively and how it runs in Windows using Paraells. Hopefully I will have the opportunity to do this test in the near future.

Anyway, if I bought a Mac for personal use it would be great if I could run my Windows only games.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Wooo!
by flanque on Sat 2nd Jun 2007 02:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wooo!"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I've actually seen instances where Windows XP was running faster in Linux under and emulator, than it did on the hardware alone, using the same system config.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wooo!
by ThanhLy on Fri 1st Jun 2007 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Wooo!"
ThanhLy Member since:
2006-03-14

But now game companies can legitimately punt on the whole problem.


Actually I think the 3D support in Parallels would hurt the Mac gaming scene rather than help it. Think about it, you'd still be playing PC/Windows games and if we're content with that, where's the incentive for game developers to make native Mac games?

A consumer level Mac computer such as the iMac probably wouldn't be enough to run demanding games, never mind doing so in a virtual machine. However, developers could produce eye-candy in a game that's optimized to run natively in OSX.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wooo!
by Kroc on Fri 1st Jun 2007 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Wooo!"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Not everybody is going to buy a £160 Windows licence, and then Parallels, just to play games on Mac.

Parallels 3 shows there is solid demand for games on the Mac - one way or another. Game companies will see that such demand exists and it will improve the chances of native games being produced.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Wooo!
by ameasures on Fri 1st Jun 2007 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wooo!"
ameasures Member since:
2006-01-09

>Not everybody is going to buy a £160 Windows licence, and then Parallels, just to ...

That sounds like the retail edition; does the OEM edition have problems or driver gaps that make it unsuitable?

A

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wooo!
by Kroc on Fri 1st Jun 2007 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wooo!"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Where does Joe user purchase an OEM copy from a shelf, such as how they buy the games they intend to play?

Playing games in VMs is a limited subset of users with a copy of Windows, and Parallels / Fusion.

There's better hope for Cider / Wine / Ports.

---

OEM edition is the same as retail but comes without box, and can only be bought online with the purchase of memory or hard disk.

Edited 2007-06-01 17:46

Reply Score: 2

Nice!
by cylent on Fri 1st Jun 2007 17:32 UTC
cylent
Member since:
2007-04-26

pretty cool!

i want to know why this is not available for parallels linux running windows as guest. </me scratches head>

Reply Score: 2

Great
by Xaero_Vincent on Fri 1st Jun 2007 18:34 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

Now Linux/*nix just needs this 3D acceleration.

There is an OpenGL solution called VMGL for Linux but what good is OpenGL when the vast majority of Windows games use DirectX?

Reply Score: 2

Befuddled...
by cmost on Fri 1st Jun 2007 18:57 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Just a side commentary... while it's fantastic that 3D support has been added to Parallels (and soon to be added to VMware)I can't help but be amazed that so much effort goes into getting games working on computers. Why are games are so important to people? I grew up in the 80's and have witnessed Atari, Nintendo, Sega Genesis, etc.; all the way up to today's Wii and Super Nintendo released to great fanfare. I can honestly say I never touched a joystick after the Atari / Commodore 64 fell out of vogue. I don't play board games or card games either. I've always found myself too busy with other interests to bother with games.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Befuddled...
by Johnnybw2 on Fri 1st Jun 2007 19:51 UTC in reply to "Befuddled..."
Johnnybw2 Member since:
2007-03-02

Why are games are so important to people?


As the saying goes "there is no work without play". Although i have found that i only play games on consoles these days. I find having a better, more stable os outweighs being able to play games on my pc. Also with consoles i know it will last me 5 years without needing to replace/upgrade it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Befuddled...
by polaris20 on Fri 1st Jun 2007 21:19 UTC in reply to "Befuddled..."
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Why do people read books? Watch movies? Watch TV? It's entertainment. It's a hobby. For some, a serious hobby. That's why it is important to get games working on various platforms.

It's important to people, therefore companies are interested because where there's interest, there's potential revenue to be generated.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Befuddled...
by dagw on Sun 3rd Jun 2007 13:45 UTC in reply to "Befuddled..."
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

So just because you aren't interested in something it is completely impossible for you to understand why anybody else would be interested in that thing? The world isn't you, you know.

Reply Score: 3

Faster than Crossovers?
by testerus on Fri 1st Jun 2007 20:06 UTC
testerus
Member since:
2005-07-06

How does it compare to Codeweaver’s Crossover?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Faster than Crossovers?
by polaris20 on Fri 1st Jun 2007 21:28 UTC in reply to "Faster than Crossovers?"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

How does it compare to Codeweaver’s Crossover?

Good question. How fast would a completely virtualized OS running, say, Office 2003, as opposed to WINE running Office 2003?

I imagine WINE would still be faster, if by only a little bit. With something like Office 2003, I doubt the difference would be significant, but with games, it could be a fair difference.

Reply Score: 1

free upgrade after may 1??
by jcgf on Fri 1st Jun 2007 20:44 UTC
jcgf
Member since:
2005-11-14

I wonder if the free upgrade counts if you purchased through the apple store or if you had to buy it through the parallels website specifically. I just purchased a black Macbook and a copy of parallels 2 weeks ago tomorrow and parallels hasn't even arrived yet (damn ups, I wish they'd sent it all fed.ex.).

Reply Score: 1

Crashable Junk
by hraq on Sat 2nd Jun 2007 00:45 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have used all virtualization software available in the Market and I have not found a single one that is not buggy, expensive and limited.

I know that virtualization is a dream and a noble feature, but no one did it the nice way except for vmware with their Server barebone metal version (ESX).
Try ESX with sun or Dell or HP servers and you will understand the difference.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Crashable Junk
by roger64 on Sat 2nd Jun 2007 07:47 UTC in reply to "Crashable Junk"
roger64 Member since:
2006-08-15

your experience of virtualization softaware is probably a bit outdated. I use VirtualBox on Linux, which is free, works reliably and is a perfect complement to my Linux.

It misses the possibility of running 3D games but you cannot describe him as "bugged" or "expensive".

Reply Score: 1

Best desktop VM bar none.
by alban on Sat 2nd Jun 2007 07:39 UTC
alban
Member since:
2005-11-15

Parallels on Mac already provides the best desktop VM experience available today.
I think this is because the desktop VM is their core business.

Others have had years to improve their desktop VM offering, especially regarding graphics acceleration and desktop integration and they have not delivered - they are more interested in Servers.

Reply Score: 3

So if Parallels
by vicious1 on Sat 2nd Jun 2007 08:42 UTC
vicious1
Member since:
2006-11-10

can do now Direct X 8.x then why is it better then VMWAre Fusion that can do DX 8.1 as well? I am using Fusion simply because it allows me to move my virtual machines from my server to my MBP when I travel and then back to the server when I am home. This way I always have my working Virtual Machines with me. Fusion has most of the Parallels features already and allows you to open multiple Virtual machines at the same time which, last time I checked was nearly impossible on Parallels. Fusion is, as of now, Free so a perfect compliment to the free VMWare server.
So why is this such a big deal? I don't get it.


//Flosse
http://blog.2blocksaway.com

Reply Score: 0

VMWare Fusion Fan as well...
by MikeekiM on Sat 2nd Jun 2007 12:54 UTC
MikeekiM
Member since:
2005-11-16

But, I'm still waiting for:
- Shared Folder
- host ability to see virtual machine server.

Reply Score: 1

VMWare WILL have 3D support??
by larwilliams on Sat 2nd Jun 2007 16:31 UTC
larwilliams
Member since:
2007-04-03

VMWare has had 3D support (although beta) for quite some time now. Look it up on their web site.

Reply Score: 1

RE: VMWare WILL have 3D support??
by l3mr on Sat 2nd Jun 2007 17:01 UTC in reply to "VMWare WILL have 3D support??"
l3mr Member since:
2007-05-01

Yes, but only DirectX 8.1.

Reply Score: 1

before you hurry out to buy pc games...
by Alleister on Sat 2nd Jun 2007 23:19 UTC
Alleister
Member since:
2006-05-29

Consider that the vast majority of Macs sold have far too slow GPUs for actual PC games, so safe your money if you have an Mac Mini, Mac Book, or the small iMac, since these mashines aren't powerfull enough anyway because the GMA950 can't compete with a seven year old GPU.

Only buy if you have an Power Mac with a decent graphics card... or because you don't care for games and are after 2d / low end 3d apps / 3d apps from before 2000.

Reply Score: 2

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I think Mac owners are just aware as PC owners what they're gaming specs are. I have a MacBookPro 2.16GHz, 128MB ATI X1600, 1GB RAM and I can run Tomb Raider Anniversary at 1440x900 at highest settings. Macs are not /that/ incapable. Even a GMA950 can play WoW.

Reply Score: 2

Has Parallels support caught up yet?
by dlundh on Sun 3rd Jun 2007 10:18 UTC
dlundh
Member since:
2007-03-29

I got a refund after V2 just didn't work for me and I got no support. I'm not bitter though, I got my money back and I would be willing to try Parallels again if they actually hire people to support the product.

Is the Parallels forum still full of people who get zero support or has it improved?

Reply Score: 1